Scientists Accidentally Blow Up Their Lab With Strongest Indoor Magnetic Field Ever (vice.com) 154
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Motherboard: Earlier this year, researchers at the University of Tokyo accidentally created the strongest controllable magnetic field in history and blew the doors of their lab in the process. As detailed in a paper recently published in the Review of Scientific Instruments, the researchers produced the magnetic field to test the material properties of a new generator system. They were expecting to reach peak magnetic field intensities of around 700 Teslas, but the machine instead produced a peak of 1,200 Teslas. (For the sake of comparison, a refrigerator magnet has about 0.01 Tesla)
In both the Japanese and Russian experiments, the magnetic fields were generated using a technique called electromagnetic flux-compression. This technique causes a brief spike in the strength of the magnetic field by rapidly "squeezing" it to a smaller size. [...] Instead of using TNT to generate their magnetic field, the Japanese researchers dumped a massive amount of energy -- 3.2 megajoules -- into the generator to cause a weak magnetic field produced by a small coil to rapidly compress at a speed of about 20,000 miles per hour. This involves feeding 4 million amps of current through the generator, which is several thousand times more than a lightning bolt. When this coil is compressed as small as it will go, it bounces back. This produces a powerful shockwave that destroyed the coil and much of the generator. To protect themselves from the shockwave, the Japanese researchers built an iron cage for the generator. However they only built it to withstand about 700 Teslas, so the shockwave from the 1,200 Teslas ended up blowing out the door to the enclosure. While this is the strongest magnetic filed ever generated in a controlled, indoor environment, the strongest magnetic field produced in history belongs to some Russian researchers who created a 2,800 Tesla magnetic field in 2001.
In both the Japanese and Russian experiments, the magnetic fields were generated using a technique called electromagnetic flux-compression. This technique causes a brief spike in the strength of the magnetic field by rapidly "squeezing" it to a smaller size. [...] Instead of using TNT to generate their magnetic field, the Japanese researchers dumped a massive amount of energy -- 3.2 megajoules -- into the generator to cause a weak magnetic field produced by a small coil to rapidly compress at a speed of about 20,000 miles per hour. This involves feeding 4 million amps of current through the generator, which is several thousand times more than a lightning bolt. When this coil is compressed as small as it will go, it bounces back. This produces a powerful shockwave that destroyed the coil and much of the generator. To protect themselves from the shockwave, the Japanese researchers built an iron cage for the generator. However they only built it to withstand about 700 Teslas, so the shockwave from the 1,200 Teslas ended up blowing out the door to the enclosure. While this is the strongest magnetic filed ever generated in a controlled, indoor environment, the strongest magnetic field produced in history belongs to some Russian researchers who created a 2,800 Tesla magnetic field in 2001.
That's the problem, right there (Score:4, Funny)
"the magnetic fields were generated using a technique called electromagnetic flux-compression. "
They didn't have a flux-compensator.
Re:That's the problem, right there (Score:5, Funny)
"the magnetic fields were generated using a technique called electromagnetic flux-compression. "
They didn't have a flux-compensator.
I would say they probably used too big of a flux capacitor. They're lucky they didn't get sent back in time.
Re:That's the problem, right there (Score:5, Funny)
They're lucky they didn't get sent back in time.
They did. And they continued their research in Russia.
the strongest magnetic field produced in history belongs to some Russian researchers who created a 2,800 Tesla magnetic field in 2001
Re: (Score:3)
This was the strongest *indoor* field... Not really sure why that matters, I suppose it's more risky.
Re: (Score:1)
How about the title "Scientists produced the strongest indoor magnetic field ever by running indoor an experiment which should have been performed outside"?
The record of the largest indoor fireworks is also up for grabs, if anyone is willing to blow up their house.
Re: (Score:1)
Apparently, the historical method of trying to do this is to make a huge explosion with TNT to generate the force to compress the magnetic field.
This has the effect of utterly destroying your equipment and everything around it.
Not so good for indoors, for actual applications, or being able to reproduce what you've done.
These guys are building the thing they can re-use indoors, but they got more power out of
Re:That's the problem, right there (Score:4, Informative)
No, the 4M Amps is going to destroy the generator just fine without any explosives, the containment cage was to keep the explosion of the generator inside the room. When the cage failed under the 60% higher than expected field strength the explosion was no longer contained to the experiment and thus blew the doors off the lab.
Re: (Score:2)
Doesn't seem like much of a margin. Normally you want 3x the required strength.
Re: (Score:2)
Not so good for indoors, for actual applications, or being able to reproduce what you've done.
True about the indoors part.
It is fine for actual applications if they are of the "one use" sort. Flux compression generators were used to produce huge power pulse in some early nuclear weapons which had 92 exploding bridge wire detonators and needed over 100,000 amps, stat, from a lightweight source.
They are reproducible. You just have to build another set-up like the one you blew up.
Re: (Score:3)
This was the strongest *indoor* field... Not really sure why that matters, I suppose it's more risky.
Because of the way that strongest magnetic field ever was generated.
It involved detonating 170 kg of Composition B high explosive [worldscientific.com]. Don't try this at home (or in the lab) folks!
Re: (Score:2)
This was the strongest *indoor* field.
That's because they already learned their lesson from 2018.
Re: (Score:2)
"the magnetic fields were generated using a technique called electromagnetic flux-compression. "
They didn't have a flux-compensator.
I would say they probably used too big of a flux capacitor. They're lucky they didn't get sent back in time.
They didn't reach the necessary 88mph as they ran away.
Re: (Score:1)
"the magnetic fields were generated using a technique called electromagnetic flux-compression. "
They didn't have a flux-compensator.
I would say they probably used too big of a flux capacitor. They're lucky they didn't get sent back in time.
Lucky for them, they didn't reach 86 Miles Per hour.... Maybe the Delorian didn't start?
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Easy people... maybe his keyboard doesn't go all the way to 88. Max(bobbied_keyboard) == 86. /me hangs head sadly.
Re: (Score:2)
Classic Rock and Roll baby!
Re: (Score:1)
We need a huge magnet! HUGE!
Re: (Score:2)
What if I told you, your kind will go back to stop Trump? But fail to achieve the goal, forced to relive his presidency — and go through puberty — again?
Isn't he already trying to do this? (Score:2)
It seems that Trump is already trying to manage the Waffle House---and the Waffle Senate.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
and the United States gets universal free healthcare and free university educations for everybody.
You don't actually believe either of those things would be 'free' do you? Someone, somewhere has to pay for them.
Re: (Score:2)
You completely avoided the point in my post.
But, the only thing I side with is the right of people to dispose of their money as they see fit. The less government intrudes in that, the better (be it in the form of increased taxes to pay for universal health care -- which i do happen to agree with; though in a single payer system. And higher education strongly disagree with that one.
The fact is, the majority of people don't need a college education, aren't cut out for it, and it basically functions as a gia
Re: (Score:2)
Go back a bit further and nobble Paul Revere's horse.
Just imagine, you'd all be speaking English now!
Re: (Score:2)
You left out the Unicorns. Always have Unicorns.
Re: (Score:2)
"the magnetic fields were generated using a technique called electromagnetic flux-compression. "
They didn't have a flux-compensator.
Exactly! I saw that episode of Star Trek Voyager too. They also should have used reverse tachyon companding.
Magneto (Score:2)
Contradiction? (Score:5, Insightful)
Was it accidental or controllable? I feel like you can't have it both ways
Re: Contradiction? (Score:5, Insightful)
Controllable Field, Calibration Estimate Way Off (Score:2)
Was it accidental or controllable?
It was controllable in that they can adjust the strength of the field. It was accidental in that their estimate of the field strength was very low and they did not design the apparatus to contain the effects of such a strong field. Now that they have a calibration point they can improve the containment to cope with the larger than expected field and can adjust the field itself by changing how much energy they dump into the coil to get the field desired.
Re: (Score:2)
So ya go ahead and skip the 25% and 50% test, just flip that big switch for me will ya already!
Re: (Score:2)
Build safety to exactly the predicted capacity? (Score:5, Insightful)
Is anyone else confused why they built a cage to only withstand the exact scenario of an experiment?
I've heard engineers often tout a 10x safety limit, as in if you think something is only going to hold 100 lbs, you build it to hold 1,000.
Since they were doing something that hasn't been done, why would they only allow the safety system to only work if the results were exactly what they expected?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
2) Engineers do not use a error margin of 10x for everything, this would end up into unacceptable costs. But having said that, indeed they will try to put a generous margin of error on anything new or experimental;
3) The guys in the lab are scientists, not engineers. This answer your question?
Re: (Score:3)
"I've heard engineers often tout a 10x safety limit"
This is how American engineers worked for 100 years. From the first railroads and factories until the Japanese auto invasion. 'When in doubt, double the strength!' And there was always doubt because materials science in the US was poorly understood and often ignored.
Then the Japanese brought us thoughtfully engineered vehicles which were lighter, safer, more reliable and less expensive. Even today many US designed products are often built to satisfy the ma
Re: (Score:1)
This is how American engineers worked for 100 years. From the first railroads and factories until the Japanese auto invasion. 'When in doubt, double the strength!' And there was always doubt because materials science in the US was poorly understood and often ignored.
Then the Japanese brought us thoughtfully engineered vehicles which were lighter, safer, more reliable and less expensive.
Nice myth. Did you know that a 2018 Toyota Camry weighs pretty much the same as a 1951 Chevy Malibu?
Re:Build safety to exactly the predicted capacity? (Score:5, Informative)
Then the Japanese brought us thoughtfully engineered vehicles which were lighter, safer, more reliable and less expensive.
Nice myth. Did you know that a 2018 Toyota Camry weighs pretty much the same as a 1951 Chevy Malibu?
It's not a myth. When you recycle steel, it gets harder. You can put carbon back into it to make it softer, but that costs money. American cars of the 1950s were made out of mild steel. That steel eventually got recycled and shipped to Japan. Then the Japanese didn't add more carbon to it — instead, they designed vehicles around the materials. More straight lines, more sharp edges. And in a monocoque design (aka "unit body", aka "unibody")* the additional stiffness was a boon instead of a bane. It meant that you could get just as much strength with a lighter (but harder) grade of steel. It wasn't until Lee Iacocca's Chrysler K-Cars that Americans built cars like the Japanese did, and those lightweight and thus fuel-efficient vehicles absolutely did affect the American automakers in the early 1970s.
This wasn't just restricted to the Americans, though. The rest of the non-Asian world was still building cars out of mostly mild steel. But, fast forward to 1978. Mercedes designs the W126, their first automobile made out of 100% high strength steel, which goes into production for the 1981 model year. This vehicle shaves hundreds of pounds off as compared to the predecessor, the W116. It also introduces the eurostyle we know today, with unit headlights which take capsules (though not in the USA, where we had misguidedly mandated sealed beams for safety) and with an integrated, flush-mount bumper cover for aerodynamics (but not in the USA, where we had perhaps more reasonably mandated 5-mph bumpers — in the US, the bumper sticks out considerably.) And automotive design was never the same. Everyone and their mom has since emulated the W126 to some degree, and in some models. For example, the original Lexus LS was a fairly shameless W126 copy.
The other notable thing that happened in 1978 was Mercedes-Benz's introduction of a four channel ABS system, designed and built by Bosch. While the W126 was to reduce unit body mass, ABS began the trend of increasing it with safety features. Mercedes made air bags and pyrotechnic pretensioners standard on the W126 in about 1986; they were available as options from the introduction in 1981. Today, ABS is actually standard equipment; in the EU it has been mandatory on passenger cars since 2004, and in the USA it was made mandatory as part of ESC in 2013.
Finally, the USA has been a leader in pushing crash safety standards. Both the NHTSA and the IIHS have their own crash safety tests that have been forcing automakers to add metal for the last couple of decades. Notably, rollover protection, side impact protection, and small offset crash protection have all substantially increased vehicle weight in the last number of years. As well, American cars are less American than ever. GM's most popular models have been designed in Australia, Chrysler's full-size sedan is just a cheap copy of a Mercedes E-Class, Ford has gone fully multinational and has abandoned all but their smallest and lightest vehicles...
TL;DR: Your comparison of a modern Japanese car to an American one of over sixty years ago is completely meaningless.
* Why are neither monocoque nor unibody in the Moz dict? Fail, fail.
Re: (Score:2)
American lost to the Japanese in the 1970s because before the oil crisis, there was no incentive to make efficient cars in the US, but there was in Japan (mostly because big cars didn't fit on Japanese roads, but also because America was already a car culture and we were OK shelling out a sizeable chunk of our earnings to drive). When the oil crisis hit, the Japanese were in a better position to take advantage of it than the Americans were. Painting it as American engineers being inferior is untrue.
It's not a myth. When you recycle steel, it gets harder. You can put carbon back into it to make it softer, but that costs money. American cars of the 1950s were made out of mild steel. That steel eventually got recycled and shipped to Japan. Then the Japanese didn't add more carbon to it — instead, they designed vehicles around the materials.
You can
Re: (Score:2)
Painting it as American engineers being inferior is untrue.
Well, it's a good thing that I didn't even suggest such a thing.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"I've heard engineers often tout a 10x safety limit"
This is how American engineers worked for 100 years. From the first railroads and factories until the Japanese auto invasion. 'When in doubt, double the strength!'
They really didn't. They used rules of thumb, mostly, until sometime in the early-mid 1900s. Real analysis wasn't possible before then, and looking at senior engineering books from the 40s/50s will truly shock you in their lack of mathematical backing.
Re: (Score:3)
Well OK, we've talked about automotive chassis strength, body strength and high carbon steel. Engineering involves a lot more than that. While American cars looked like bloated elephants, motorcycles and racing cars around the world were evolving much faster.
Motorcycle engineers experimented with different frame configurations to create a rigid frame that provides better handling, unlike the Harleys and Vincents whose flexy frame made them a road hazard. They analyzed the rake and trail of the front end for
They blew what? (Score:5, Funny)
Did they suck off their doors, or did they blow off their doors? Editing is important.
Re:They blew what? (Score:4, Insightful)
Editing is important.
You must be new here!
(Seriously, that has to be one of the worst summaries I’ve read in quite a while)
Re: (Score:2)
Did they suck off their doors, or did they blow off their doors? Editing is important.
As kinky as the Japanese are, I wouldn't be surprised if they sucked off the doors before they blew off.
Re: (Score:2)
Did they suck off their doors, or did they blow off their doors? Editing is important.
As kinky as the Japanese are, I wouldn't be surprised if they sucked off the doors before they blew off.
You'd think they would wrap tentacles around it - nothing can escape from tentacles.
Jokes and all, but is that real, or just them pulling our tentacles?
Re: (Score:1)
...The Doors (except Morrison since he is dead
Sadly, Ray Manzarek died of cancer back in 2013.
Re: (Score:2)
No, they blew them off.
I wonder if they achieved the same orbit as that woosh.
call me when (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Luckily for them, they didn't reach 1.21 jiggawatts. Who knows when they'd have ended up if they had....
Re: (Score:2)
they get it to 1.2 jigga-watts!
For many years I just assumed that was normal American pronunciation :-)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm jiggy with it.
You're only supposed to blow the bloody doors off. (Score:5, Funny)
I love how the summary describes a lab with the doors flying off as a "controlled environment".
Re: (Score:3)
And "indoor".
Re: (Score:2)
And "indoor".
It was indoor even after it blew the door off of the enclosure.
Re: (Score:2)
I love how the summary describes a lab with the doors flying off as a "controlled environment".
Either Japanese researchers have a different definition of "controlled" or it's a Google Translate misinterpretation. Those are the only two options, because journalists never make mistakes when reporting technology stories, and /. has the best editors on the Internet.
Refrigerator magnet is a bad comparison (Score:4, Interesting)
Oh please, since we are in a supposedly nerd site let's use hard drive motor magnet instead.
Those are pretty powerful as anyone curious enough to dismantle one drive would certainly know. Those are 1 tesla magnets.
Re: (Score:1)
For the benefit of others:
A hard drive has two separate sets of magnets: one set for the "spindle" stepper motor used to spin the platters, and a second set for the "actuator" arm which swings the read/write heads to different tracks of the platter.
Although the "actuator" arm doesn't complete full rotations, it is an electrically controlled/driven movement, and technically fits the definition of "motor". (A solenoid (coil) with inserted metal cylinder, for example, drawing the cylinder inward in response t
Re: (Score:1)
I actually use hard drive magnets as fridge magnets, you insensitive clod!
(True story; they're great.)
In Soviet Russia (Score:5, Funny)
the strongest magnetic field produced in history belongs to some Russian researchers
Of course it was... If it involves big explosions, danger, or a glorious disregard for human life then chances are the Russians hold the record in it. Gotta love em for it.
Re: In Soviet Russia (Score:1)
In Soviet Russia, you do not blow off doors...
Doors blow off YOU
Re: (Score:2)
If it involves big explosions, danger, or a glorious disregard for human life then chances are the Russians hold the record in it. Gotta love em for it.
Hardcore Henry [youtube.com] was a documentary.
Re: (Score:2)
Safety is number one priority!
Where exactly are the doors getting "blown" off? (Score:3)
Blowing sh*t up for science!! (Score:5, Insightful)
I love this ... the machine worked just fine, the containment is bashed to hell.
This is how science should work ... a successful test, some major carnage to show how cool your work is, and major bragging rights for how much of a "boom" you made.
And, from an article I saw earlier, while the Russian scientists did make the far larger magnetic field, they destroyed their gear in the process. In this case, the gear survived, but the containment was pretty much mangled, which does a really good job of the kind of forces they're working with.
Though, I still have to admire the Russian scientists for the very Russian science of using TNT .. what it lacks in finesse, it makes up for in sheer power and brute force. One has to admire that approach, it's just so much more fun.
Re: Blowing sh*t up for science!! (Score:1, Funny)
Am I missing .... an eyebrow?
Not Always (Score:5, Interesting)
This is how science should work ... a successful test, some major carnage to show how cool your work is, and major bragging rights for how much of a "boom" you made.
Not really. It's fine when you are doing what these guys are doing but, as a particle physicist who worked on the Large Hadron Collider, the "major carnage" crazy people worried about us causing was end-of-the-world carnage. While it is true that we would have had amazing bragging rights for creating the biggest bang in the now much sorter history of humanity, speaking personally, that's the sort of bragging we can quite literally all live without.
Of course, the reason the LHC was safe actually relied on observation more than calculation. Cosmic rays striking the Earth can create collisions with energies well above what the LHC and yet despite their best efforts over the past 4.5 billion years the planet is still here.
Re: (Score:1)
LOL, OK, with the proviso that except for end-of-the-world carnage, I still stand by that statement.
Me, the image of a bu
If it destroyed the lab... (Score:2)
...it probably wasn't very controllable....
I think I'm missing something... (Score:2)
"Earlier this year, researchers at the University of Tokyo accidentally created the strongest controllable magnetic field in history and blew the doors of their lab in the process."
So they intended to blow the doors? Neat. I want a job like that! I'd prefer to target other doors than my own, though.
The fault is not in our stars, but ourselves. (Score:4, Interesting)
Headline says they blew up their lab.
First sentence says they 'blew the doors of their lab'.
By the end of the quote it's become merely 'blowing out the door to the enclosure'
Such a tiny example of the death of journalism and the abandonment of the sanctity of objective and empirical truth. It flourishes everywhere, compliments of the Internet, the scabies of social media that live on it, and those who prefer happy lies to perhaps dour truths. Scoff all you want, it's not yet too late to become who you think you are already.
It's not the governments, it's not the propaganda "they're" feeding people. It's us. We've become trash.
Railgun for Zumwalt class destroyer. (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
I understand that the next generation rail-gun will use flux compression. It will be called the Trump gun and will discharge from the stern of the ship.
What is the point of science if no one gets hurt? (Score:2)
Holy Hyperbole (Score:5, Informative)
From the Headline to the Article:
Headline: "Blew up their lab"
Summary: "Blew the doors off of their lab"
Article: "Blew the door off of the generator enclosure"
Video: "There was a small fire in the fixture that lasted a few seconds, but otherwise nothing happened"
Re: (Score:2)
Science! (Score:2)
Goes BOOM!
It is all fun and games until... (Score:2)
...the tiny little delicate plot device at the base of Doctor Otto Octavius' neck protecting his brain from being controlled by the AI robotic arms is damaged.
When it was turned on... (Score:2)
Did the magnet point North?
Or did North point at IT?
This is an EMP Weapon (Score:3)
3.2 megajoules (Score:1)
So the conversion from Joules to KWH is 1kwh = 3.6mj. So the "massive" amount of energy they uses is about what you would use running a small space heater for an hour. What am I missing?
Re: (Score:2)
It was delivered in a fraction of a second at 4 million amps.
Re: (Score:2)
You're missing that the "space heater" was run for less than a second.
What? (Score:2)
Blowing off the door to the cage containing the magnet is a far cry from blowing up the entire lab.
Still cool though.
That's REAL science. (Score:2)
Sounds like they were doing honest to god real science there. Nothing says "real science" like unexpected results and blowing up their lab.
Cave Johnson would be proud.
I'm wondering.... (Score:2)
Did it happen something like this?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Controlled? Not so much (Score:1)
Wonder how it compared... (Score:1)
Doctor: "So...technically, we are never supposed to put that lever up to 10..."
---PCJ
Exploding consoles & flux capacitors (Score:1)
So they got Star-Trekkian sparks and smoke, and Back-to-the-Future's flux capacitors. I just had a sci-fi-gasm, get the Kleenex. Now if only the damned em-drive had worked, I'd blow the doors off my mom's basement.
Magnetic Personality (Score:2)
Obligatory Oceans 11 scene (Score:2)
Math it out? (Score:3)
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I would figure they would do and know the math before they did this.
I assume it's all known equations, so how could they get it so wrong?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
Re:If it blew the doors off (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Are you Michael bloody Caine?
Re: (Score:3)
Why am I not surprised that a Tesla blew up?
Probably because you have an (irrational) hatred of anything remotely connected to Elon Musk. :p
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
Definitely irrational. We all know that he is a stand-up guy. He is saving the Earth and humanity and stuff.
Yes, he's a bit like Jesus only not as holy.
Re: (Score:2)
If he keeps pissing off people at the rate he's been doing, he may well become holey soon.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
At least he's trying.
Which is the opposite of what you're doing. Trashing the most successful electric car company is not helping anybody other than people who are speculating on oceanfront property in north central Florida.
Re: (Score:2)
I won't argue with that [merriam-webster.com]
Re: (Score:2)